Make sure to visit brilliant.org/DinoDiego/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription! Well, another episode is finally out! Hope you guys enjoyed this one. Hopefully the next part doesn't take as long to get out, but no promises. As always, I appreciate you patience for this series. It seriously helps, because I don't feel under pressure and you don't get a rushed episode! Along with that, thank you all for getting me to 38k subs!
30:06 Is that the Fabled Crocoduck fossil? 32:10 Alot of that is just because people dont know, In the USA a lot would be due to religion! But still lots just because people are ignorant! 33:15 But Kerbos would be getting so much bigger! 37:00 Grooming as in marrying a legal adult! LOL THERES LOTS OF DIVORCES!
You shouldn't use the very specific term "theory" in the colloquial sense, especially not when dealing with scientific topics. Spinal Catastrophism for example is in the best case a hypothesis. To use the word "theory" when a hypothesis and at worst baseless speculation is adressed devalues its actual scientific meaning and furthers woo and antiintellectualism - if essencially anything gets referred to as a theory the less educated layman will confuse legitimate science with bullshit. For example to call Intelligent Design "a theory" would lend it false credibility while causing the appearence of being a legitimate approach, after all it seems to play in the same ballpark as the _Theory_ of Evolution then. No wonder nutters are trying to reject science by saying "It's just a theory" when even people who are actually interested in scientific accuracy are using the term arbitrarily. A theory is a corpus of study and knowledge to explain an observed phenomenon, such as the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory etc., not merely just somebody's speculation about something. Please be more careful when using the term. I enjoy your content, so please don't take it as an attack - it's meant as a friendly reminder because I'm sure you actually know the difference and sometimes the colloquial usage simply slips in. 😅 Have a nice weekend and greetings from Berlin!
@@kai_plays_khomus "For example to call Intelligent Design "a theory" would lend it false credibility while causing the appearence of being a legitimate approach, after all it seems to play in the same ballpark as the Theory of Evolution then" The dumbest of dumb god pretenders dont know what scientific theory means, others dont but accept the Theory of flight etc! and unfortunately wont just off a tall building because its only a theory! They juet like and deny reality for their imaginary friend that hides in clouds scared of people who smashed it with IRON CHARIOTS! according to the baseless bible anyway but they also ignore that fact! 🤦♂🤣 As they claim the bible is 100% true! LOLs
'Prehistoric horse haunting' was not a phrase I expected to hear today... not to mention I was picturing an adorable little ghostly eohippus, not the sexiest horse ever...
@@Nobody-11B never said it was common but the description does match what a white Clydesdale would look like and then there's the fact that wild/feral horses can be quite aggressive.
One thing that doesn't add up with the dragon genetic memory thing ... not all dragons in mythology are malevolent, in fact, in a lot of non-christian mythologies dragons are outright benevolent, The Long of Chinese culture comes to mind, as well as the pre-christian Zmaj, the males of the species were said to be benevolent and protect crops, although the females were violent. A lot were gods too, like the thunder god of the basque, Sugaar, The slavic god Zirnitra, and many others like Quetzalcoatl They're not something we fear instinctually, or otherwise.
Imagine being a small omnivorous mammal, seeing a huge Lizard killing another and leaving enough of its carcass for you since it cant reach every tiny piece of flesh and you being to small of a bite to be worth the effort. Seems pretty benevolent/godlike to me
It's similar with snakes. There's this theory about apes (and so humans) instinctively fearing snakes which is the reason why they're always depicted as evil in mythology. The issue is that they're not always depicted as evil. Ancient Greeks saw their skin sheeding as a symbol of rebirth. In Slavic mythos there were actually chill snake creatures. The great snake monster from nordic legends might eventually bring Ragnarok but for now he keeps world's waters from falling into space (since ya know, Earth is flat according to the old model)
@@julianxamo7835 um no. Big brother has to do with the government watching you. Big pharma has to do with the idea that pharmacies getting involved with the government or suppressing information to benefit them.
The dragons thing, it's not just snakes. Crocodiles are literally giant monsters that wait in rivers, that wait to snatch their prey up. The saltwater crocodile can grow up to sizes of 30 feet or more, and used to live as far north as South Asia before human activity pushed it away. On top of that, monitor lizards have been a threat to humans for ages, with Australia having monitor lizards that could grow up to 30-50 feet long. The same goes for other things, like stories of wild men. On the island of Flores in Indonesia (I believe), there is a mythical creature that is said to be a small person covered in hair, that would steal things from the natives. This is the same place where the diminutive Homo Floresiensis was discovered. The stories of the small people predate the discovery of the Hobbit by at least decades.
In terms of dragons, from what I hear ancient descriptions of them were more snake-like than dinosaur like. In fact if you look at ancient cultural depictions of dragons, you can see they look like snakes rather than dinos. That's not surprising since snakes were (and still are) around when these ancient cultures were thriving, and when people were describing mythical beasts in stories they would have made comparisons to creatures that were still around, whereas the non-avian dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years before human beings evolved and thus never entered the collective consciousness until recently when their fossils started getting dug up.
i read the origin of dragons is more a mix of our biggest predators and oldest predators, snakes, birds of prey, and big cats. those three animals make up a dragon perfectly
I actually find it fascinating that Carl Sagan had that theory about genetic memory, because when I learned about genetic memory when I was a teen, and saw so many eerie similarities between different cultures, I started to wonder about that as well. Most humans fear the dark, and attribute it to something evil and mysterious that hides vicious monsters in it, because our early mammalian ancestors were being hunted by predators that could see in the dark better than us. I can't help but wonder if some of humanity's religious and spiritual beliefs might stem from subconscious memories passed down from our 4 legged ancestors. Those memories some how being warped over millions of years, like a genetic game of telephone. Until those genetic memories are unable to accurately distinguish the sea dwelling plesiosaur from the coastal shore dwelling pterosaur, and thus they merge into the concept of the Asian dragons that were said to live in or near large bodies of water. Or something akin to that example. Don't know if it's possible, but it's interesting to think about.
I think the issue with Sagan's idea is that the idea of dragons as purely monsterous or predatory creatures is very eurocentric. Japan and mesoamerica have creatures which could be considered dragons, but in those cultures they are generally benevolent rather than malevolent.
While fear likely has a genetic component, similarities between different cultures are most likely based on something like convergent evolution but for cultures. "Floods are important" is going to be a common thing since the vast majority of civilizations emerged in river valleys, where floods were simultaneously disastrous and also very good for irrigation. Dragons are typically based on serpents, which makes sense since snakes are very common around the globe. Hell "Storm God fights Snake beast" is a trope found in mythologies from Japan, to the Norse, to Abrahamic Faiths, to the Nahuatl.
@@JesseAdavis Just for clarification, I wasn't implying that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, nor do I think Sagan was suggesting that either. Hince the use of the term "mammalian ancestors" and not "early humans"
In defense of Carl Sagan's theory there might be some truth to genetic memory. All primates, including humans, have an instinctive visceral fear of snakes. Even people who aren't afraid of snakes objectively and even find harmless snakes cute, their brains go _haywire_ upon perceiving a snake. Scans of the primate brain show incredibly unique activity to snakes that we don't see even from other animals including other phobia animals like spiders and rats. Personally I subscribe to a variation of this theory that dragons are an instinctive amalgamation of big cats, snakes and birds of prey which are some of our biggest fears as primates but it is still all fascinating none the less.
Uncanny valley could have some links to genetic memory. Assuming we had a lot of negative run ins with other hominids, it would explain why we're uneasy about things that seem almost human but not quite.
@@overlorddante I think the uncanny valley is a lot easier to place. It's just our natural fear of disease. When something looks human enough, but not quite, then our Brian registers it as an ill human and wants us to get away from it. Kind of like the visceral reaction we have when looking at the elephant man or people like him.
@The Nerd Beast Adding onto your theory, I think the reason they breathe fire and are often sapient, is because, if they are all our predators, our most dangerous predator is a rival human group.
I gotta say I love how clear your voice and pronunciation are in these videos. I only just recently began watching ice-berg videos, and sometimes I come across ones with interesting and fun topics, but the people narrating them mumble or talk too fast. And this series has been fun and interesting so far.
Have to say, the Genetic Memory Theory (if not plausible imo) is really interesting. It reminds me of a concept from Psychology called "preparedness", which advocates that people learn to fear certain objects (like spiders, snakes etc.) faster bc. it is ingrained in our Genetics. Iirc evidence for it has actually been found in experiments with monkeys, where they were conditioned to fear "scary" objects (like spiders and snakes) and "non-scary" objects (like flowers). Despite never having any contact with snakes or spiders, the fear conditioning worked faster and stronger there.
I haven't looked at the actual iceberg in full myself because I like watching these videos and seeing everything as it comes up. And I'm still patiently waiting for Stoned Ape Theory to show up
My mom met Venessa Weaver's ex-boyfriend at work a around the time Venessa married Jack Horner. Needless to say, the ex-boyfriend was *pissed* that his girl was stolen by Horner.
@@miguelpedraentomology6080 hundreds of years bc by Herodotus reporting on animal migrations through Egypt, Marco Polo visiting China in the 1100s, Beowulf in the early dark ages in Denmark, thunderbirds in the American southwest seen by cowboys, st George and the dragon, even reports in the early modern age of pterodactylids in the British isles, though the contemporary language would be “serpents,” because that is the older English term for “reptiles.”
It's funny how we seek to find out why a ton of cultures have independently conceived of dragons when we probably just classify too many different things as dragons. If you showed an alien with no concept of dragons as we know them a Chinese dragon and a European dragon, it probably wouldn't consider the two the same thing.
Quite new to these iceberg videos, have watched all of yours so far and a few of your other ones. Really nice work, so easy to watch but you can see how much effort you've put in.
Also when I heard "Big Paleo" the first thing I thought of was "Big Pharma", with the shortening and the negative association of something that controls something you want freedom in but can't due to oppression through economics.
Small correction, Shastasaurus was not the largest marine reptile to ever live, it was Shonisaurus, a genus that we think looked similar, but was not part of the same group of Ichtyosaurs that Shastasaurus hails from m
@@maxtube444 well from what I’ve seen, it’s complicated, we have fossil remnants from a large ictyosaur, but we don’t know if it belongs to Shastasaurus or Shonisaurus
I think I've heard a version of the "dragons as genetic memory of dinosaurs" theory but, instead of an extremely distant memory of dinosaurs from our earliest mammalian ancestors, the version I heard stated that dragons are inspired from the instinctual memory of predators that hunted our relatively recent primate ancestor, particularly birds and snakes.
Never understood the young earth stuff and am pretty sure multiple Catholic theologists have argued the seven days of creation are to be interpreted as seven days to God's cosmic scale of time, not man's. Adam's genealogy is, very arguably, 6K years old. But the Bible does not state how long Adam and Eve existed for before being expelled from Eden, whether or not that time counts towards the 930 years Adam lived aware of his mortality after eating of the tree, or that the world itself is 6K years old.
Dragons. I can't remember where I read this but there's a theory that dragons are a combination of features from the many large creatures that hunted early humans (ie gaint birds for the wings, lion for the general body shape, snake/lizards for the scales and features etc.) This is the theory I've always kinda leaned towards... with dinosaur bones being the "prove" they existed
Unfortunately this idea is pretty Eurocentric, as most non-European dragons are mostly more slender and snake-like, many lacking wings even if they fly. Hell, even many European dragons like the English Wyrm or Norse's world serpent Jormungandr are more snake-like than the traditionally imagined European dragon.
The Atlantean Mammoth idea doesn't come completely out of left field. Plato himself said that Atlantis had elephants, and ones that were bigger than the ones in Africa.
@God Emperor Lech Even the most isolated mammoth populations died out 1500 years before Plato. Most of the world hadn't seen them for several thousands of years. Even for the time, the guy sounds like a kook for pitching his Atlantean mammoth fossil idea
I'd just be happy to have a pet Dimetrodon, like the cover of Sagan's book, but my apartment has a "no pets" policy. That and the whole mass extinction thing.
Horses rank high on the Great Chain of Being - a theory of there being a ranking from God, through Angels, Man, Animal, Plants and Minerals popular in the medieval era.
I don’t think the first theory is too far fetched, judging that we still get dreams where we fall which comes from when our ancestors lived up in trees and would get these dreams when we were close to falling of the tree. We know this because our modern relatives, like apes and monkeys, clearly have some sort of dream because there is something preventing them from falling of the tree while sleeping. I’m not very good at explaining and I may have left out some key details in this theory but I read it in a text book somewhere and can’t find it now.
I can add onto that! I think what you're describing is known as a Hypnogogic jerk, or sleep myoclonus. We still aren't sure why it happens, but one theory is that our brain remains aware enough of it's surroundings and our own body functions as we're falling asleep to sometimes realize that our muscles are not moving, and our heart rate is slowing down- basically, our brain gets "nervous" that we're dying, so it sends a message to your body as a check-in of sorts to make sure you're still alive and responsive.
You kinda missed out on some of the best parts regarding Islam‘s relationship to evolution: 1) Multiple surahs of the Quran affirm that all life began in water with a single being, which seems to support the modern notions of abiogenesis and common descent. Other verses also seem to describe the Big Bang and the further expansion of the universe. The creation of Adam by God is also preceded by the angels asking if this new creature will also be corrupt and barbaric again like its predecessors, which seems to allude to earlier, more primitive humans. 2) In the 1300s Ibn Khaldun formulated his own evolutionary hypothesis, which was not alchemical but instead was close to approaching natural selection as defined by Darwin.
I remember an article about a muslim scholar who specifically wrote downa theory that animals change over time to adapt to their environment, maybe its the one you talked about, but the wording was very close to darwins theory
9:00 I think this is more referring to the pre-Darwinian Islamic scholars like Al-Jahiz who wrote about concepts that sound fairly similar to evolution as we view it today rather than Islamic views on evolution in general. Though his beliefs are more akin to Lamarckism and obviously contain errors. Concepts similar to evolution existed way before Darwin, e.g Anaximander who wrote about his in 6th century BC, however what seperates Darwin from Al-Jahiz or Anaximander etc. is his approach was more scientific while the others developed their theories more in a philosophic way
I interpreted the Spinal Catastrophism thing to be a dissertation for its own sake or the sake of tenure, more referencing philosophers than coming up with any novel ideas, but maybe I ought to read it again.
I find the spinal catastrophe theory kind of interisting becase during the european choloera outbreak a large amount of people who suvived were CF carriers, but if you combine some CF components it can become deadly so the case of human survival choosing a quick fix to overcome plague leading to generations of genetic disorders is an interesting reflection on how natural selection and evolution work overall
The issue of genetic memory is strange, it's the kind of thing that makes sense, but ultimately there's no definitive evidence. Because I keep wondering - why would a slow moving snake, whose mouth and stomach isn't big enough to eat a proto-hominid, is more terrifying than a fast moving lion or an ambushing crocodile? It will only attack in self-defense, unlike other predators of proto-hominids.
Evolution is not a science, it's pretty random. For early apes evolving an irrational fear of snakes made them avoid a particular danger. Being irrationally afraid of big cats won't save you from one precisely because it can chase you.
I want to say that part of Sagan's theory - or, really, the original development - was more about crocodiles than anything else. Actually, I'm pretty sure he used dinosaurs as a way to both capture the imagination and help clarify his point. But hominids, including homo sapiens, were very much hunted by crocodiles in the geologically recent past. Plenty of scientific literature is developed to discussing our fear of the reptilian/serpentine/non-mammalian. And I want to say relatively recently - the 70s maybe? Maybe later - we uncovered huge crocodiles that would have occupied Africa during the advent of homo sapiens.
The hypothetical planet or star in the "every 26 million years" theory is called Nemesis. Nibiru is the alleged planet with a comet-like orbit from some Atlantis-tier pseudohistorical nonsense.
One point on the Islamic view of evolution: while lots a Muslims like Christians reject the idea of evolution, there are many Muslims who believe at some point during the evolutionary process, God gave humans (or the ancestors of modern humans) special attention; giving them the gift of knowledge, reasoning, consciousness, and so on.
First off that Stegosaurus design looks pretty dope. A pangolin styled armor herbivore doesn't sound to farfetched either. But the first one where you mentioned dragons had me thinking of the discovery channel series dragons are real. I'm not sure if you remember but they tried to pass off that scientists had found real evidence of dragons and even linked them as far back as the cretaceous (not sure if they were serious). I think that the idea of dragons comes from dinosaur fossils and that's why they look so different in eastern and western cultures. Like maybe on the eastern side sauropod fossils like mamenchisaurus were confused for large serpent like beasts due to how long their neck and tails were. On the western side carnivores like Eustreptospondylus and numerous large pterosaurs are what inspired the winged beasts we get in depictions today. That's just my theory sorry for the essay
I personally don’t believe that all dragons came from fossils of dinosaurs but I believe that have happened there is a theory that griffins came from people finding fossils of a small ceratopsian dinosaur (that I can’t remember the name of :c) so maybe that is true to some extent however I don’t believe that all of them came from dinosaurs fossils some old art of dragons look- well- reeeeaaaally weird and some that I saw even look like a very fat snake/ mammals like creatures so maybe the modern depiction of dragons did indeed have been influenced by dinosaurs but not all as for asian dragons, they are more like gods than animals, all powerful creatures that are sometimes benevolent and sometimes evil and I believe they are more of an amalgamation of living animals than actual fossils body of a snake, scale of a koi, feet of eagles, horns of a stag, mane of a horse and face of a lion I think so I think they are purely inspired by modern living creatures
The Documentary is Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real. Animal Planet/Discovery didn't try to pass it off as fact... They made it very clear in the doc that it's speculative and not real... Just a lot of people didn't catch on to that despite it being very obvious.
I came up with a theory last night that modern 'Ratites' (Ostriches, emus, etc.) are actually theropod dinosaurs. I know people say that birds are avian dinosaurs, but I took it a step further, saying that these birds are literally non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Just last night, I found out that these birds actually have claws on their wings. Now, the general theory is that they evolved from flying or, semi-flying birds, but there is not much evidence to support that. They lack the bone necessary for flight muscles to attach, and they are extremely well adapted to running, with barely functional wings. Their ancestors may have had some gliding capability, but I believe they come from a branch of dinosaurs that never fully evolved powered flight. As for them having beaks, there are theropod dinosaurs that had beaks, and some of these dinosaurs never had any ability to fly. On top of that, many dinosaurs that didn't have the power to fly or developed wings, still had wing-like feathers on their arms. My new theory is basically that these birds are a surviving lineage of theropod dinosaurs that just have small, vestigial arms, like the T-Rex.
You forgot that there's genetic evidence that Ratites are avian dinosaurs too, wich you can't theorize on because they are objective proof that they Indeed are avian dinosaurs. Also, convergent evolution doesn't go that far from them to have 1. Advanced feathers 2. Beaks without teeth 3. They are saurisquian, wich is literally what defines which dinos are avian and which aren't. Plus, the T-rex's arms weren't "vestigial" they had incredible muscle force on them too, they just had this bigass head that they already used to manipulate prey and stuff. Their arms were probably used to restrain females when copulating and getting themselves off the ground, as well as inmovilizing prey further if they could reach them with the arms and the head wasnt just enough.
1) The majority of birds still have tiny claws on their wings, they are usually just obscured by feathers. You can even see that when you eat proper chicken wings. 2) The basal-most living ratite, as confirmed by both genetic and cladistic studies, is the tinamou, which is still capable of powered flight. Since all other ratites are more derived than it, it means the first ratites were capable of flight as well. Fossil ratites also show flight capabilities. 3) Genetic and other cladistic studies firmly show that ratites/paleognaths are the sister group to the neognaths, making them proper birds. In short, this is all an argument from ignorance.
@SciFyerGaming Yeah, calm down bro, it's obvious I'm not a scientist, so obviously I'm not using the word 'theory' in the scientific sense. I'm sure most scientists don't go around posting their theories on RUclips. With regards to the bird/dinosaur thing, I didn't mean that ratites are literally the same thing as, say a velociraptor. I just mean that they might be descended from a branch of ancient birds that never fully achieved flight. I'm not sure how well known the evolution of these birds is known compared to other flying birds, so I don't think it is known for sure what their common ancestor was, and its exact relation to other birds. Either ways, they are technically a branch of dinosaurs that survived till today, just like other birds, they just happen to preserve other traits, too, like claws.
@SciFyerGaming I was actually not aware of that, because when I read about them one time, it said that it was uncertain from where they originated. Thank you for the new information. It still fascinates me that they have vestigial claws on their wings like the hoatzin chicks do.
Please be joking. We were THIS CLOSE to having the majority of people know birds evolved from raptor-like dinosaurs eg. Microraptor, archaeopteryx etc.
"We are essentially absorbing the physical spinal pain and trauma that our ancestors had to experience" I think whoever came up with that should talk to a chiropractor, because that's not a universal experience.
That first one kinda made me think of The Silmarillion by JRR Tolkien, as i had this idea that the dragons of Arda were, in a way, symbolic of dinosaurs, especially as the dragons in this world then went extinct, as far as we know of Tolkien’s legendarium.
Pretty sure dragons were simply born from our instinctual fears of snakes, big cats, and birds of prey, which preyed upon our ape ancestors. We simply took the elements of all the things we feared and merged them together in various combinations.
Could be. That's the most popular theroy. There could have been a very small population of pterosaurs left when we were evolving. There could have been a sea serpent still around when we were evolving. We can never truly know unless we dig up the entire earth and find a way to exactly date fossils. The only thing we do know is that the earth is very very old and discoveries are made everyday challenging the sciences status quo.
That doesn’t work as an explanation because most of the historical references to them are in the form of eyewitness accounts and not mythological stories.
@@apozki9773 some could have survived a bit longer. There's no way of knowing for sure. Keeping your self in a box and not allowing for various options only makes knowledge stagnate. It's why scientists have a hard time acknowledging each other's therorys before they die. Like continental drift. Dude was ridiculed for his "crack pot" therory of continental drift. He died and his peers were like "oh yeah,he was on to something". That dosnt mean everyone's theories are correct, but dismissing because you belive you know it for a fact shows the same lack of curiosity and discomfort for change.
I collect a lot of weird fringe theory / conspiracy books that I can come across, and one of them is "Did Spacemen Colonise the Earth?". Now I will say that I haven't actually read it yet, but looking at the contents page itself has really sold me. I have found a copy via the Internet Archive, but it requires a "free" account, and you can only read it one hour at a time? If I have some time on my hands, I might be able to photocopy some pages if needed.
hey there! dig the video! theistic evolutionist here. I think young earth theory, flat earth theory, and geocentricism are absolutely silly. while I pride myself in being a critical thinker and open-minded, my theology revolves around the premise that God can do whatever He wants. that seems like kind of a cop out, but it makes the bridge between science and theology shorter. at least in my feeble brain.
As a Christan... Creationists even annoy me 😅 So I can only imagine how athiests feel towards them. But I truly do not understand a complete denial of evolution. The statement "there's no solid proof" goes against common sense. Evolution is just logical. If there is selection pressure and random mutation across generations than Evolution has to exist, simple as that.
The explanations that creationists give for things can be truly baffling. Probably the biggest creationist on RUclips is Kent Hoovind. While you could write a novel on why he’s a dipshit an example of his incredible science at work is his reasoning why penguins are in Antarctica and not the Arctic. Apparently after they disembarked Noah’s ark the penguins decided to walk south instead of North. Great science Kent, really glad that you used to be a licensed teacher
8:16 I'm muslim, I think that evolution and creation do not contradict each other. Evolution is a process with which god creates new species. The Quran does actually mention that life was created in many evolving steps, which can be related to evolution. And it also mentions the creation of life from water and clay(minerals), something which is in line with where modern science think the first single-celled organisms came from.
To be more centred around islam and not about the followers of islam, in the quran it self we have a verse in which God asks us "Walk through the earth and see how God made it's first creation..." al ankabut verse 46:20 which was hintting alot towards paleo science and it's considered one of the mericles of the quran, there are more others, but I need sometime to read the chapters again, but this is one of the three that stuck the most in my mind. really hope you see this diego.
As a muslim, I believe both to the Evolution and Big bang. There is evidence that Quaran supports the idea of Evolution, but not really the Big Bang. Yes, it kind of supports... but not really.
2:20 Dragons are people digging up dino bones and doing some kindergarten-level puzzling. 11:00 Ah yes, the wishful thinking of oil barons "Maybe this cup we sip from will refill itself. It will not. You blood-drenched idiots.
That spinal catastrophism gives me a red flag. Specifically if a person uses unnecessarily complicated words to introduce a concept, it’s probably bullshit. Sometimes long words are needed to explain specifics, but as an intro to a concept, simpler words will do.
Make sure to visit brilliant.org/DinoDiego/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription!
Well, another episode is finally out! Hope you guys enjoyed this one. Hopefully the next part doesn't take as long to get out, but no promises. As always, I appreciate you patience for this series. It seriously helps, because I don't feel under pressure and you don't get a rushed episode! Along with that, thank you all for getting me to 38k subs!
7:30 bruh this horse sounds like the possessed Berserk horse, or maybe it’s inspiration
30:06 Is that the Fabled Crocoduck fossil?
32:10 Alot of that is just because people dont know, In the USA a lot would be due to religion! But still lots just because people are ignorant!
33:15 But Kerbos would be getting so much bigger!
37:00 Grooming as in marrying a legal adult! LOL THERES LOTS OF DIVORCES!
You shouldn't use the very specific term "theory" in the colloquial sense, especially not when dealing with scientific topics. Spinal Catastrophism for example is in the best case a hypothesis.
To use the word "theory" when a hypothesis and at worst baseless speculation is adressed devalues its actual scientific meaning and furthers woo and antiintellectualism - if essencially anything gets referred to as a theory the less educated layman will confuse legitimate science with bullshit. For example to call Intelligent Design "a theory" would lend it false credibility while causing the appearence of being a legitimate approach, after all it seems to play in the same ballpark as the _Theory_ of Evolution then. No wonder nutters are trying to reject science by saying "It's just a theory" when even people who are actually interested in scientific accuracy are using the term arbitrarily. A theory is a corpus of study and knowledge to explain an observed phenomenon, such as the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory etc., not merely just somebody's speculation about something.
Please be more careful when using the term.
I enjoy your content, so please don't take it as an attack - it's meant as a friendly reminder because I'm sure you actually know the difference and sometimes the colloquial usage simply slips in. 😅
Have a nice weekend and greetings from Berlin!
@@kai_plays_khomus "For example to call Intelligent Design "a theory" would lend it false credibility while causing the appearence of being a legitimate approach, after all it seems to play in the same ballpark as the Theory of Evolution then"
The dumbest of dumb god pretenders dont know what scientific theory means, others dont but accept the Theory of flight etc! and unfortunately wont just off a tall building because its only a theory! They juet like and deny reality for their imaginary friend that hides in clouds scared of people who smashed it with IRON CHARIOTS! according to the baseless bible anyway but they also ignore that fact! 🤦♂🤣 As they claim the bible is 100% true! LOLs
'Prehistoric horse haunting' was not a phrase I expected to hear today... not to mention I was picturing an adorable little ghostly eohippus, not the sexiest horse ever...
These stories can be so misleading sometimes😂
Honestly the description made it sound like it was probably an aggressive white Clydesdale.
^ yeah because that happens all the time...
@@Nobody-11B never said it was common but the description does match what a white Clydesdale would look like and then there's the fact that wild/feral horses can be quite aggressive.
@@Nobody-11B really a feral white horse sounds less likely to you then a ghost
Ya gotta give Huxley credit for admitting he was wrong, these days public figures would rather die.
For real
Can you blame them? Their careers are on the line. Science be damned!
One thing that doesn't add up with the dragon genetic memory thing ... not all dragons in mythology are malevolent, in fact, in a lot of non-christian mythologies dragons are outright benevolent, The Long of Chinese culture comes to mind, as well as the pre-christian Zmaj, the males of the species were said to be benevolent and protect crops, although the females were violent.
A lot were gods too, like the thunder god of the basque, Sugaar, The slavic god Zirnitra, and many others like Quetzalcoatl
They're not something we fear instinctually, or otherwise.
Imagine being a small omnivorous mammal, seeing a huge Lizard killing another and leaving enough of its carcass for you since it cant reach every tiny piece of flesh and you being to small of a bite to be worth the effort.
Seems pretty benevolent/godlike to me
@@brumbarde6817 Fair enough
@@brumbarde6817 came to say this to
It's similar with snakes. There's this theory about apes (and so humans) instinctively fearing snakes which is the reason why they're always depicted as evil in mythology. The issue is that they're not always depicted as evil. Ancient Greeks saw their skin sheeding as a symbol of rebirth. In Slavic mythos there were actually chill snake creatures. The great snake monster from nordic legends might eventually bring Ragnarok but for now he keeps world's waters from falling into space (since ya know, Earth is flat according to the old model)
Clearly, somebody played with monster cards growing up
I feel like the term "big paleo" is rather a parody of "big pharma" than "big brother"
"Big pharma" is a reference to "Big brother" tho
@@julianxamo7835 no it isn't, it's like saying big tobacco, just the nameless interest group
Oh definitely, that's what crossed my mind
@@julianxamo7835 um no. Big brother has to do with the government watching you. Big pharma has to do with the idea that pharmacies getting involved with the government or suppressing information to benefit them.
Big history
OH LAWD IT'S HERE HECC YEAH
IVE WAITED 4, NO 5 THOUSAND YEARS FOR THIS
In reality the wait is well worth it, can wait to see more, not just the tier list but more
Appreciate that! Hopefully, you only have to wait a few thousand years for the next one😂
Have you found the red stone tho ?
The dragons thing, it's not just snakes. Crocodiles are literally giant monsters that wait in rivers, that wait to snatch their prey up. The saltwater crocodile can grow up to sizes of 30 feet or more, and used to live as far north as South Asia before human activity pushed it away. On top of that, monitor lizards have been a threat to humans for ages, with Australia having monitor lizards that could grow up to 30-50 feet long. The same goes for other things, like stories of wild men. On the island of Flores in Indonesia (I believe), there is a mythical creature that is said to be a small person covered in hair, that would steal things from the natives. This is the same place where the diminutive Homo Floresiensis was discovered. The stories of the small people predate the discovery of the Hobbit by at least decades.
Good observations, however concerning Megalania's size, current estimates put it at around 15-20 feet max.
TIL that crocodiles can grow to 30 feet. That is scarily large.
I like how the naturalists in this had the habit of naming thier discoveries after thier besties.
In terms of dragons, from what I hear ancient descriptions of them were more snake-like than dinosaur like. In fact if you look at ancient cultural depictions of dragons, you can see they look like snakes rather than dinos. That's not surprising since snakes were (and still are) around when these ancient cultures were thriving, and when people were describing mythical beasts in stories they would have made comparisons to creatures that were still around, whereas the non-avian dinosaurs have been extinct for millions of years before human beings evolved and thus never entered the collective consciousness until recently when their fossils started getting dug up.
And even when we first time discovered dinosaurs and other extinct reptiles we depicted them as giant lizards and snake like creatures.
i read the origin of dragons is more a mix of our biggest predators and oldest predators, snakes, birds of prey, and big cats. those three animals make up a dragon perfectly
A good book that goes into some theories of the origins of myths is Medusa's Gaze and Vampires Bite
@@TheHortoman also weird fossils/bones.
There’s literal sauropods on Egyptian monuments. Not mistakeable for snakes
I actually find it fascinating that Carl Sagan had that theory about genetic memory, because when I learned about genetic memory when I was a teen, and saw so many eerie similarities between different cultures, I started to wonder about that as well.
Most humans fear the dark, and attribute it to something evil and mysterious that hides vicious monsters in it, because our early mammalian ancestors were being hunted by predators that could see in the dark better than us. I can't help but wonder if some of humanity's religious and spiritual beliefs might stem from subconscious memories passed down from our 4 legged ancestors.
Those memories some how being warped over millions of years, like a genetic game of telephone. Until those genetic memories are unable to accurately distinguish the sea dwelling plesiosaur from the coastal shore dwelling pterosaur, and thus they merge into the concept of the Asian dragons that were said to live in or near large bodies of water. Or something akin to that example.
Don't know if it's possible, but it's interesting to think about.
I think the issue with Sagan's idea is that the idea of dragons as purely monsterous or predatory creatures is very eurocentric. Japan and mesoamerica have creatures which could be considered dragons, but in those cultures they are generally benevolent rather than malevolent.
While fear likely has a genetic component, similarities between different cultures are most likely based on something like convergent evolution but for cultures. "Floods are important" is going to be a common thing since the vast majority of civilizations emerged in river valleys, where floods were simultaneously disastrous and also very good for irrigation. Dragons are typically based on serpents, which makes sense since snakes are very common around the globe. Hell "Storm God fights Snake beast" is a trope found in mythologies from Japan, to the Norse, to Abrahamic Faiths, to the Nahuatl.
or, alternatively, and hear me out on this one, crocodiles
There is also the thing wrong with the theory with there being only small rat size mammals at the time of the dinosaurs.
@@JesseAdavis Just for clarification, I wasn't implying that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, nor do I think Sagan was suggesting that either. Hince the use of the term "mammalian ancestors" and not "early humans"
In defense of Carl Sagan's theory there might be some truth to genetic memory. All primates, including humans, have an instinctive visceral fear of snakes. Even people who aren't afraid of snakes objectively and even find harmless snakes cute, their brains go _haywire_ upon perceiving a snake. Scans of the primate brain show incredibly unique activity to snakes that we don't see even from other animals including other phobia animals like spiders and rats.
Personally I subscribe to a variation of this theory that dragons are an instinctive amalgamation of big cats, snakes and birds of prey which are some of our biggest fears as primates but it is still all fascinating none the less.
Uncanny valley could have some links to genetic memory. Assuming we had a lot of negative run ins with other hominids, it would explain why we're uneasy about things that seem almost human but not quite.
@@overlorddante I think the uncanny valley is a lot easier to place. It's just our natural fear of disease. When something looks human enough, but not quite, then our Brian registers it as an ill human and wants us to get away from it. Kind of like the visceral reaction we have when looking at the elephant man or people like him.
@The Nerd Beast Adding onto your theory, I think the reason they breathe fire and are often sapient, is because, if they are all our predators, our most dangerous predator is a rival human group.
@@overlorddante But other hominids don't have an uncanny valley look. Neanderthals are clearly not sapiens.
Did it mentions if the brain of people who love snakes and other phobia animals also have their brain go haywire when they see them?
I live for these videos. Obscure but interesting knowledge is why I am always drawn to iceberg videos, but yours are a cut above the rest
I gotta say I love how clear your voice and pronunciation are in these videos. I only just recently began watching ice-berg videos, and sometimes I come across ones with interesting and fun topics, but the people narrating them mumble or talk too fast. And this series has been fun and interesting so far.
Have to say, the Genetic Memory Theory (if not plausible imo) is really interesting.
It reminds me of a concept from Psychology called "preparedness", which advocates that people learn to fear certain objects (like spiders, snakes etc.) faster bc. it is ingrained in our Genetics.
Iirc evidence for it has actually been found in experiments with monkeys, where they were conditioned to fear "scary" objects (like spiders and snakes) and "non-scary" objects (like flowers).
Despite never having any contact with snakes or spiders, the fear conditioning worked faster and stronger there.
I haven't looked at the actual iceberg in full myself because I like watching these videos and seeing everything as it comes up. And I'm still patiently waiting for Stoned Ape Theory to show up
stoned ape is one of my favourite "i wish they were true" theories
Stoned apes and long boring nights is probably where we got the genetic dragon memory from.
Paranoid Uncle Greeewf and his trunk side stories
Trip tank.
I don’t care how unproven it is, I love the Stoned Ape Theory and hold some hope that it’s true
My mom met Venessa Weaver's ex-boyfriend at work a around the time Venessa married Jack Horner. Needless to say, the ex-boyfriend was *pissed* that his girl was stolen by Horner.
That sexy old man smooth talking dinosaurs into her hear
That's why Horner is so fixated on T.rex being a scavenger..HE was the real predator all along!!
I heard it was a completely consensual relationship. The girl just really likes fossils.
I wonder how possible it might be that dragons come from humans finding fossils once we started doing things like quarrying stone for building.
Not very. Accounts of dragons exist from places long before major industry and in places/by people who have nothing to do with quarrying
Possibly some bones though did erode out naturally.
@@cosmictreason2242 like?
@@miguelpedraentomology6080 hundreds of years bc by Herodotus reporting on animal migrations through Egypt, Marco Polo visiting China in the 1100s, Beowulf in the early dark ages in Denmark, thunderbirds in the American southwest seen by cowboys, st George and the dragon, even reports in the early modern age of pterodactylids in the British isles, though the contemporary language would be “serpents,” because that is the older English term for “reptiles.”
@@cosmictreason2242 i am quite sure all of these did do mining or things like that to build stuff and all.
More, please! This is such a fun mixed bag.
Glad you enjoy it! There's definitely more to come, hopefully soon!
It's funny how we seek to find out why a ton of cultures have independently conceived of dragons when we probably just classify too many different things as dragons. If you showed an alien with no concept of dragons as we know them a Chinese dragon and a European dragon, it probably wouldn't consider the two the same thing.
Quite new to these iceberg videos, have watched all of yours so far and a few of your other ones. Really nice work, so easy to watch but you can see how much effort you've put in.
Sagan: "Dragons are genetic memory of Dinosaurs"
Some dude 2000 years ago: "HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THESE GIANT BONES I FOUND WHILE WORKING THE MINES!"
Also when I heard "Big Paleo" the first thing I thought of was "Big Pharma", with the shortening and the negative association of something that controls something you want freedom in but can't due to oppression through economics.
*6000 years ago
Edit a week later: Wait, how is there another reply? Show me the hidden reply, RUclips!
I love esoteric paleontology, thanks Dino Diego for making this videos
I'm starting to give these videos a like before even watching them purely becuse I'm thankful to have so much paleontology to listen too in the future
I always loved dinosaurs as a kid, this videos really entertain me.
Small correction, Shastasaurus was not the largest marine reptile to ever live, it was Shonisaurus, a genus that we think looked similar, but was not part of the same group of Ichtyosaurs that Shastasaurus hails from m
Other way around
@@Jackson-xl7sv wait which part
Actually, last time I checked, it is Shastasaurus. But idk
@@maxtube444 well from what I’ve seen, it’s complicated, we have fossil remnants from a large ictyosaur, but we don’t know if it belongs to Shastasaurus or Shonisaurus
@@pocketmarcy6990 That’s probably it
"Psychometry, which isn't very accepted in the science community" is the biggest understatement I've ever heard
Imagine if you found t rex fossil and take it to the museum and then a fuckin glowing t rex ghost chase you in the night
Pretty sure they're Mongolians
It didn't took you so long. I am grateful for you to make videos ❤️
Big Paleo is a parody of Big Oil. A company so big it can control even governments. I would assume
I think I've heard a version of the "dragons as genetic memory of dinosaurs" theory but, instead of an extremely distant memory of dinosaurs from our earliest mammalian ancestors, the version I heard stated that dragons are inspired from the instinctual memory of predators that hunted our relatively recent primate ancestor, particularly birds and snakes.
Never understood the young earth stuff and am pretty sure multiple Catholic theologists have argued the seven days of creation are to be interpreted as seven days to God's cosmic scale of time, not man's.
Adam's genealogy is, very arguably, 6K years old. But the Bible does not state how long Adam and Eve existed for before being expelled from Eden, whether or not that time counts towards the 930 years Adam lived aware of his mortality after eating of the tree, or that the world itself is 6K years old.
William Denton sounds like a character I made for an X-Men roleplaying game who had the same ability.
I read the whole quintaglio ascension trilogy 3 times since you posted that video i cant thank you enough for exposing me to that
Dragons. I can't remember where I read this but there's a theory that dragons are a combination of features from the many large creatures that hunted early humans (ie gaint birds for the wings, lion for the general body shape, snake/lizards for the scales and features etc.) This is the theory I've always kinda leaned towards... with dinosaur bones being the "prove" they existed
Unfortunately this idea is pretty Eurocentric, as most non-European dragons are mostly more slender and snake-like, many lacking wings even if they fly.
Hell, even many European dragons like the English Wyrm or Norse's world serpent Jormungandr are more snake-like than the traditionally imagined European dragon.
@@Tedris4 fair enough... never really gave it more then a passing thought 🤔... I might have to sit down and spend a bit of thought on it
@@Tedris4 Yeah, basically all primates have an instinctual fear of snakes, including us. A big ass snake is even more scary
The Atlantean Mammoth idea doesn't come completely out of left field. Plato himself said that Atlantis had elephants, and ones that were bigger than the ones in Africa.
not to mention mammoths still had isolated living populations
@God Emperor Lech
Even the most isolated mammoth populations died out 1500 years before Plato. Most of the world hadn't seen them for several thousands of years. Even for the time, the guy sounds like a kook for pitching his Atlantean mammoth fossil idea
I'd just be happy to have a pet Dimetrodon, like the cover of Sagan's book, but my apartment has a "no pets" policy.
That and the whole mass extinction thing.
Just say it's not a pet but a distant familly "relative".
@@seiyn6888 Maybe get a doc to sign it off as an _"emotional support synapsid?"_
This is such a compelling series so glad to have found it! Keep up the amazing work my man
Horses rank high on the Great Chain of Being - a theory of there being a ranking from God, through Angels, Man, Animal, Plants and Minerals popular in the medieval era.
Jeez I knew jack horner was a controversial person but that last entry is just wild but somehow not surprising.
About the dragons: It's not that there are so many dragons, just that we modern humans label everything big and scaly as a dragon.
I don’t think the first theory is too far fetched, judging that we still get dreams where we fall which comes from when our ancestors lived up in trees and would get these dreams when we were close to falling of the tree. We know this because our modern relatives, like apes and monkeys, clearly have some sort of dream because there is something preventing them from falling of the tree while sleeping. I’m not very good at explaining and I may have left out some key details in this theory but I read it in a text book somewhere and can’t find it now.
I can add onto that! I think what you're describing is known as a Hypnogogic jerk, or sleep myoclonus. We still aren't sure why it happens, but one theory is that our brain remains aware enough of it's surroundings and our own body functions as we're falling asleep to sometimes realize that our muscles are not moving, and our heart rate is slowing down- basically, our brain gets "nervous" that we're dying, so it sends a message to your body as a check-in of sorts to make sure you're still alive and responsive.
Yesss. Now I can watch all of the tiers in succession
Ah yes, neogeocentrism: the theory that the universe revolves around a Neo Geo console
"It's not impossible that some lifeforms within the deep seas are descended from prehistoric life"
In fact I guarantee they all are.
Maybe the real paleontology fringe theories were the friends we made along the way.
I wish Bond's Stegosaurus was named Pineapple Stegosaurus
Was Jack Horner told to go sit in a corner? While he was there, did he eat a Christmas pie, and pull a plum from it with his thumb?
Maybe I’m a huge nerd, but I laughed at all of your jokes
I think big paleo is a reference to "big pharma" as in a status quo is upheld by specific groups
NeoGeo-Centrism is pretty cool tho... I loved playing Metal Slug and KOF on mine :P
I was scrolling through the comments hoping someone said something like this lol
I feel the first topic can be thought of as like a genetic psd type…to help people understand
You kinda missed out on some of the best parts regarding Islam‘s relationship to evolution:
1) Multiple surahs of the Quran affirm that all life began in water with a single being, which seems to support the modern notions of abiogenesis and common descent. Other verses also seem to describe the Big Bang and the further expansion of the universe. The creation of Adam by God is also preceded by the angels asking if this new creature will also be corrupt and barbaric again like its predecessors, which seems to allude to earlier, more primitive humans.
2) In the 1300s Ibn Khaldun formulated his own evolutionary hypothesis, which was not alchemical but instead was close to approaching natural selection as defined by Darwin.
32:26 "...Planet X..."
Me: **Godzilla Xiliens flashbacks**
I remember an article about a muslim scholar who specifically wrote downa theory that animals change over time to adapt to their environment, maybe its the one you talked about, but the wording was very close to darwins theory
9:00 I think this is more referring to the pre-Darwinian Islamic scholars like Al-Jahiz who wrote about concepts that sound fairly similar to evolution as we view it today rather than Islamic views on evolution in general. Though his beliefs are more akin to Lamarckism and obviously contain errors. Concepts similar to evolution existed way before Darwin, e.g Anaximander who wrote about his in 6th century BC, however what seperates Darwin from Al-Jahiz or Anaximander etc. is his approach was more scientific while the others developed their theories more in a philosophic way
Let's get freaaakyyyyyyyyyy (responsibly at work, as I listen to it as a podcast), amazing videooo dude
Glad your back!!! Love your vids man!
Neogeocentricism is when you believe the universe revolves around the Neo Geo arcade board.
I love these videos! Keep it up.
that ghost horse sounds like a bloodborne enemy
Islamic theory : Human might be horses.
Bojack Horseman : You don't say.
That was awesome! Really was the best in the series ywt
I interpreted the Spinal Catastrophism thing to be a dissertation for its own sake or the sake of tenure, more referencing philosophers than coming up with any novel ideas, but maybe I ought to read it again.
I’m very upset that this wasn’t shown in my feed sooner
I find the spinal catastrophe theory kind of interisting becase during the european choloera outbreak a large amount of people who suvived were CF carriers, but if you combine some CF components it can become deadly so the case of human survival choosing a quick fix to overcome plague leading to generations of genetic disorders is an interesting reflection on how natural selection and evolution work overall
The issue of genetic memory is strange, it's the kind of thing that makes sense, but ultimately there's no definitive evidence. Because I keep wondering - why would a slow moving snake, whose mouth and stomach isn't big enough to eat a proto-hominid, is more terrifying than a fast moving lion or an ambushing crocodile? It will only attack in self-defense, unlike other predators of proto-hominids.
Evolution is not a science, it's pretty random. For early apes evolving an irrational fear of snakes made them avoid a particular danger. Being irrationally afraid of big cats won't save you from one precisely because it can chase you.
By that logic, Why do people today have fears of snakes? It’s not completely rational but it exists.
@@normalhuman78-53 people even have fear of spiders, it might because they're venomous, but still I think there should be something we aren't seeing
I want to say that part of Sagan's theory - or, really, the original development - was more about crocodiles than anything else. Actually, I'm pretty sure he used dinosaurs as a way to both capture the imagination and help clarify his point. But hominids, including homo sapiens, were very much hunted by crocodiles in the geologically recent past. Plenty of scientific literature is developed to discussing our fear of the reptilian/serpentine/non-mammalian. And I want to say relatively recently - the 70s maybe? Maybe later - we uncovered huge crocodiles that would have occupied Africa during the advent of homo sapiens.
@@Gildedmuse really? That would make more sense
The hypothetical planet or star in the "every 26 million years" theory is called Nemesis.
Nibiru is the alleged planet with a comet-like orbit from some Atlantis-tier pseudohistorical nonsense.
One point on the Islamic view of evolution: while lots a Muslims like Christians reject the idea of evolution, there are many Muslims who believe at some point during the evolutionary process, God gave humans (or the ancestors of modern humans) special attention; giving them the gift of knowledge, reasoning, consciousness, and so on.
I think the state of the art of abiotic oil is that it exists, but not in signficant amounts.
First off that Stegosaurus design looks pretty dope. A pangolin styled armor herbivore doesn't sound to farfetched either. But the first one where you mentioned dragons had me thinking of the discovery channel series dragons are real. I'm not sure if you remember but they tried to pass off that scientists had found real evidence of dragons and even linked them as far back as the cretaceous (not sure if they were serious).
I think that the idea of dragons comes from dinosaur fossils and that's why they look so different in eastern and western cultures. Like maybe on the eastern side sauropod fossils like mamenchisaurus were confused for large serpent like beasts due to how long their neck and tails were. On the western side carnivores like Eustreptospondylus and numerous large pterosaurs are what inspired the winged beasts we get in depictions today. That's just my theory sorry for the essay
I personally don’t believe that all dragons came from fossils of dinosaurs but I believe that have happened
there is a theory that griffins came from people finding fossils of a small ceratopsian dinosaur (that I can’t remember the name of :c) so maybe that is true to some extent
however I don’t believe that all of them came from dinosaurs fossils
some old art of dragons look- well- reeeeaaaally weird
and some that I saw even look like a very fat snake/ mammals like creatures
so maybe the modern depiction of dragons did indeed have been influenced by dinosaurs but not all
as for asian dragons, they are more like gods than animals, all powerful creatures that are sometimes benevolent and sometimes evil
and I believe they are more of an amalgamation of living animals than actual fossils
body of a snake, scale of a koi, feet of eagles, horns of a stag, mane of a horse and face of a lion I think
so I think they are purely inspired by modern living creatures
The Documentary is Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real. Animal Planet/Discovery didn't try to pass it off as fact... They made it very clear in the doc that it's speculative and not real... Just a lot of people didn't catch on to that despite it being very obvious.
@@chaosticbraindo The ceratopsian you're thinking of is Protoceratops 🙂
@@horse14t thank you horse
@@horse14t thank you for the information
I came up with a theory last night that modern 'Ratites' (Ostriches, emus, etc.) are actually theropod dinosaurs. I know people say that birds are avian dinosaurs, but I took it a step further, saying that these birds are literally non-avian theropod dinosaurs. Just last night, I found out that these birds actually have claws on their wings. Now, the general theory is that they evolved from flying or, semi-flying birds, but there is not much evidence to support that. They lack the bone necessary for flight muscles to attach, and they are extremely well adapted to running, with barely functional wings. Their ancestors may have had some gliding capability, but I believe they come from a branch of dinosaurs that never fully evolved powered flight. As for them having beaks, there are theropod dinosaurs that had beaks, and some of these dinosaurs never had any ability to fly. On top of that, many dinosaurs that didn't have the power to fly or developed wings, still had wing-like feathers on their arms. My new theory is basically that these birds are a surviving lineage of theropod dinosaurs that just have small, vestigial arms, like the T-Rex.
You forgot that there's genetic evidence that Ratites are avian dinosaurs too, wich you can't theorize on because they are objective proof that they Indeed are avian dinosaurs. Also, convergent evolution doesn't go that far from them to have 1. Advanced feathers 2. Beaks without teeth 3. They are saurisquian, wich is literally what defines which dinos are avian and which aren't.
Plus, the T-rex's arms weren't "vestigial" they had incredible muscle force on them too, they just had this bigass head that they already used to manipulate prey and stuff. Their arms were probably used to restrain females when copulating and getting themselves off the ground, as well as inmovilizing prey further if they could reach them with the arms and the head wasnt just enough.
1) The majority of birds still have tiny claws on their wings, they are usually just obscured by feathers. You can even see that when you eat proper chicken wings.
2) The basal-most living ratite, as confirmed by both genetic and cladistic studies, is the tinamou, which is still capable of powered flight. Since all other ratites are more derived than it, it means the first ratites were capable of flight as well. Fossil ratites also show flight capabilities.
3) Genetic and other cladistic studies firmly show that ratites/paleognaths are the sister group to the neognaths, making them proper birds.
In short, this is all an argument from ignorance.
@SciFyerGaming Yeah, calm down bro, it's obvious I'm not a scientist, so obviously I'm not using the word 'theory' in the scientific sense. I'm sure most scientists don't go around posting their theories on RUclips. With regards to the bird/dinosaur thing, I didn't mean that ratites are literally the same thing as, say a velociraptor. I just mean that they might be descended from a branch of ancient birds that never fully achieved flight. I'm not sure how well known the evolution of these birds is known compared to other flying birds, so I don't think it is known for sure what their common ancestor was, and its exact relation to other birds. Either ways, they are technically a branch of dinosaurs that survived till today, just like other birds, they just happen to preserve other traits, too, like claws.
@SciFyerGaming I was actually not aware of that, because when I read about them one time, it said that it was uncertain from where they originated. Thank you for the new information. It still fascinates me that they have vestigial claws on their wings like the hoatzin chicks do.
Please be joking. We were THIS CLOSE to having the majority of people know birds evolved from raptor-like dinosaurs eg. Microraptor, archaeopteryx etc.
That image of Hector's Icthyosaur jawbone looks like one I saw in a documentary about New Zealand dinosaurs....
7:30 bruh this horse sounds like the possessed Berserk horse, or maybe it’s inspiration
violent horses have always been present in folklore
“There really isn’t anyone out there to advocate that dragons are real”
Well...creationists and cryptozoologists do do that.
Yeah but they're not credible so...
And are only good at building things that are racist
Yi Qi coming in clutch
That spinal catastrophism excerpt tripped me out
Nibiru that name was real popular during my senior year back in 2009....
"We are essentially absorbing the physical spinal pain and trauma that our ancestors had to experience" I think whoever came up with that should talk to a chiropractor, because that's not a universal experience.
Your so clever, will you be bringing a book out soon covering this subject/subjects?
That first one kinda made me think of The Silmarillion by JRR Tolkien, as i had this idea that the dragons of Arda were, in a way, symbolic of dinosaurs, especially as the dragons in this world then went extinct, as far as we know of Tolkien’s legendarium.
Pretty sure dragons were simply born from our instinctual fears of snakes, big cats, and birds of prey, which preyed upon our ape ancestors. We simply took the elements of all the things we feared and merged them together in various combinations.
I'd even just say "humans like to make shit up and especially scary stuff." and then gesture towards Cthulhu
Could be. That's the most popular theroy. There could have been a very small population of pterosaurs left when we were evolving. There could have been a sea serpent still around when we were evolving. We can never truly know unless we dig up the entire earth and find a way to exactly date fossils. The only thing we do know is that the earth is very very old and discoveries are made everyday challenging the sciences status quo.
@@oldmanbiscuit7518 nah pterosaurs went extinct 66mya
That doesn’t work as an explanation because most of the historical references to them are in the form of eyewitness accounts and not mythological stories.
@@apozki9773 some could have survived a bit longer. There's no way of knowing for sure. Keeping your self in a box and not allowing for various options only makes knowledge stagnate. It's why scientists have a hard time acknowledging each other's therorys before they die. Like continental drift. Dude was ridiculed for his "crack pot" therory of continental drift. He died and his peers were like "oh yeah,he was on to something". That dosnt mean everyone's theories are correct, but dismissing because you belive you know it for a fact shows the same lack of curiosity and discomfort for change.
hot damn i thought you were done already, this shit must take a lot of work
“Reaching lengths from 20-69 metres long”
Hehe, nice- wait 69 GODDAMN METRES LONG!?
I collect a lot of weird fringe theory / conspiracy books that I can come across, and one of them is "Did Spacemen Colonise the Earth?". Now I will say that I haven't actually read it yet, but looking at the contents page itself has really sold me.
I have found a copy via the Internet Archive, but it requires a "free" account, and you can only read it one hour at a time? If I have some time on my hands, I might be able to photocopy some pages if needed.
hey there! dig the video! theistic evolutionist here. I think young earth theory, flat earth theory, and geocentricism are absolutely silly. while I pride myself in being a critical thinker and open-minded, my theology revolves around the premise that God can do whatever He wants. that seems like kind of a cop out, but it makes the bridge between science and theology shorter. at least in my feeble brain.
Well... New Diego video
yay.
Plato said that there were elephants in Atlantis, he might have been talking about mammoths, but he most likely made the whole thing up.
As a Christan... Creationists even annoy me 😅 So I can only imagine how athiests feel towards them. But I truly do not understand a complete denial of evolution. The statement "there's no solid proof" goes against common sense. Evolution is just logical. If there is selection pressure and random mutation across generations than Evolution has to exist, simple as that.
The explanations that creationists give for things can be truly baffling. Probably the biggest creationist on RUclips is Kent Hoovind. While you could write a novel on why he’s a dipshit an example of his incredible science at work is his reasoning why penguins are in Antarctica and not the Arctic. Apparently after they disembarked Noah’s ark the penguins decided to walk south instead of North. Great science Kent, really glad that you used to be a licensed teacher
Youre dumb. Evolution DOES NOT exist. Humanity came from trees. Humans used to grow on TREES. But they do not tell you that. The CIA is hiding it
I am Christian and I believe that Evolution is real because of natural selection and all that.
I am atheist and I respect you and your god thanks for respecting our beliefs 😊
As soon my man said ghost horse I was like we’re officially off the deep end here 😂 love it
8:16 I'm muslim, I think that evolution and creation do not contradict each other. Evolution is a process with which god creates new species.
The Quran does actually mention that life was created in many evolving steps, which can be related to evolution. And it also mentions the creation of life from water and clay(minerals), something which is in line with where modern science think the first single-celled organisms came from.
Indeed.
To be more centred around islam and not about the followers of islam, in the quran it self we have a verse in which God asks us "Walk through the earth and see how God made it's first creation..." al ankabut verse 46:20 which was hintting alot towards paleo science and it's considered one of the mericles of the quran, there are more others, but I need sometime to read the chapters again, but this is one of the three that stuck the most in my mind.
really hope you see this diego.
As a muslim, I believe both to the Evolution and Big bang.
There is evidence that Quaran supports the idea of Evolution, but not really the Big Bang. Yes, it kind of supports... but not really.
Jack Horner is dyslexic maybe he thought she was 71 not 17
The way that man described that ghost horse was a lil sus ngl
Let's go! Fantastic iceberg
New Dino Diego vid
2:20 Dragons are people digging up dino bones and doing some kindergarten-level puzzling.
11:00 Ah yes, the wishful thinking of oil barons "Maybe this cup we sip from will refill itself.
It will not. You blood-drenched idiots.
Love this series
Almost every content creator forgets the term “big pharma” exists and turn to big brother instead despite the term not meaning the same thing
That spinal catastrophism gives me a red flag. Specifically if a person uses unnecessarily complicated words to introduce a concept, it’s probably bullshit.
Sometimes long words are needed to explain specifics, but as an intro to a concept, simpler words will do.